Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reapersaurus" data-source="post: 1024125" data-attributes="member: 1194">See, here is where we completely agree in playing styles, SHARK.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />(you never thought there'd be this arena, did you? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )It is my STRONG conclusion that, like you, a reasonably strong, heroic-level fighter-type is not aptly emulated in D&D (3e or 3.5E).It's the sheer lack of feats that make it impossible to properly model a skilled combatants abilities.[my approach] I see a combat specialist as someone who is lethal in combat, knowing a vast array of maneuvers, and specialities, not just one (or maybe 2 if you're a straight fighter class). You shouldn't be restricted to being effective with only one weapon or maneuver, due to feat rarity. Most people say "oh, if there were more feats, than PC's would start to look the same, taking all the same good feats!" That's a bunch of hooey, IMO, and unsupported by either experience or rational thought.A Paladin has so few feats to properly fight, it's a tragedy of literary proportions.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've never understood why everybody "bought' the 3E feat mechanic - they are wholly uninspired, and weak on the most part. A +1 to attack rolls? Are you kidding me? And that's the bonus I get as a combat fighter-type? How is a 5% chance better to hit an actual representation of 3 levels of a combat-classes superiority in combat over a non-combat class?But since the designers of D&D are strightjacketed (apparently <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> ) into having a Fighter only get 1 feat per 2 levels, that kind of puts a glass ceiling on all the other classes.There's simply NO WAY to pump up the other fighting classes' combat abilities without weakening the Fighter class in comparison.The only solution I can see is to bump up the feats acquisition for all, and screw the Fighter : one feat every 2 levels for everyone.This would grant the flexibility to at least attempt to make a somewhat well-rounded, skilled deadly combatant. And you probably shouldn't use a 20-level outline as the default comparison for characters, since I would bet that the average campaign doesn't go above level 12 (yours excuded, natch) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'd hope that by level 10, a combat-centered character would have enough feats to properly show his or her deadliness with multiple combat styles. [/my approach]</blockquote>

Verification